Latino voters, black voters, women voters: Why generalize?

When CNN analyst Bill Schneider talked about why Sen. John McCain (was projected to have) won California this Super Tuesday, he broke it down by issues and political leanings, saying McCain won despite losing among conservatives because of his “overwhelming support among moderates.”

But Sen. Hillary Clinton’s projected win over Sen. Barack Obama was explained through a model that broke down voters by gender and race:

Early exit polls indicate that Sen. Barack Obama carried white voters in California because of his overwhelming support among white men. White women, as in other states, more often supported Clinton. Black voters overwhelmingly favored Obama but Asian voters, whose numbers are comparable to blacks, went overwhelmingly for Clinton. The deciding factor may have been Latinos, who make up roughly 30 percent of California’s Democratic vote. They went for Clinton by a two-to-one margin.

As a Latina and a woman, I have to ask — how fair is it to voters to look at them this way? To split them by race and gender and generalize their politics? It seems less grating to view people in terms of their political positions. These are flexible things; they are chosen and they can change. Race and gender do not.

Then again, analyses like CNN’s are not uncommon and come up every election. I suppose it’s all part of the cold, impersonal math that helps candidates figure out how to best use limited resources to win elections. If it’s true that Latino voters as a group are leaning toward a certain candidate’s message, it’s good sense for the candidates to examine why.

But I wonder about the effect of these generalizations on people. Women — how do you respond to the expectation that you’re supposed to support Clinton? Black voters — what’s your response to the expectation that you’re supposed to vote for Obama?